UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


     WILLIAM BURCHETT,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                 Appellant,                          DC-0752-15-0148-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,                         DATE: September 25, 2015
                 Agency.




             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL *

           Debra D’Agostino, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

           Denise Gillis, Quantico, Virginia, for the agency.


                                           BEFORE

                              Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman
                                 Mark A. Robbins, Member


                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has petitioned for review of the April 10, 2015 initial
     decision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 18; Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 1.     For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE the initial
     decision and DISMISS the appeal as settled.


     *
        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
     significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
     but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
     required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
     precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                         2

¶2        After the initial decision in this appeal became final, the parties submitted a
     document titled “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed by the appellant on
     June 25, 2015, and by the other parties on June 26, 2015. PFR File, Tab 1. The
     document provides, among other things, for the dismissal of the appeal. 

¶3        Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the
     parties have entered into a settlement agreement, understand its terms, and intend
     to have the agreement entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. See
     Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 146, 149 (1988). We find here that
     the parties have, in fact, entered into a settlement agreement, that they
     understand the terms, and that they want the Board to enforce those terms. See
     PFR File, Tab 1, ¶ 8.
¶4        In addition, before accepting a settlement agreement into the record for
     enforcement purposes, the Board must determine whether the agreement is lawful
     on its face, whether the parties freely entered into it, and whether the subject
     matter of this appeal is within the Board’s jurisdiction; that is, whether a law,
     rule, or regulation grants the Board the authority to decide such a matter. See
     Stewart v. U.S. Postal Service, 73 M.S.P.R. 104, 107 (1997). We find here that
     the agreement is lawful on its face, that the parties freely entered into it, and that
     the subject matter of this appeal—the removal of a full-time Federal employee in
     the competitive service—is within the Board’s jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C.
     § 7701(c) and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(a)(ii).         IAF, Tab 4, Subtab 4a at 16.
     Accordingly, we find that dismissal of the petition for appeal “with prejudice to
     refiling” (i.e., the parties normally may not refile this appeal) is appropriate
     under these circumstances, and we accept the settlement agreement into the
     record for enforcement purposes.
¶5        This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this
     appeal. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulation, section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.113).
                                                                                  3

                    NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OF THEIR
                        ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS
      If the agency or the appellant has not fully carried out the terms of the
agreement, either party may ask the Board to enforce the settlement agreement by
promptly filing a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial
decision on this appeal. The petition should contain specific reasons why the
petitioning party believes that the terms of the settlement agreement have not
been fully carried out, and should include the dates and results of any
communications between the parties. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

                NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                   YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS
      You have the right to request review of this final decision by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. You must submit your
request to the court at the following address:
                          United States Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                            717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, DC 20439

The court must receive your request for review no later than 60 calendar days
after the date of this order. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (as rev. eff. Dec. 27,
2012). If you choose to file, be very careful to file on time. The court has held
that normally it does not have the authority to waive this statutory deadline and
that filings that do not comply with the deadline must be dismissed. See Pinat v.
Office of Personnel Management, 

(Fed. Cir. 1991).
      If you need further information about your right to appeal this decision to
court, you should refer to the Federal law that gives you this right. It is found in
Title 5 of the United States Code, section 7703 (5 U.S.C. § 7703) (as rev. eff.
Dec. 27, 2012).    You may read this law as well as other sections of the
United States Code, at our website, http://www.mspb.gov/appeals/uscode.htm.
Additional     information     is    available    at    the     court’s    website,
                                                                                4

www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se
Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained within the court’s       Rules of
Practice, and Forms 5, 6, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our
website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono
representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal
Circuit.   The Merit Systems Protection Board neither endorses the services
provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation
in a given case.




FOR THE BOARD:                           ______________________________
                                         William D. Spencer
                                         Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.